Opinion
Case No. 11-17909
02-05-2014
In re: RICHARD ALAN MEDLAR, Debtor.
Chapter 13
Chief Judge Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
The debtor Richard Medlar moves for an emergency injunction to enjoin Clareshire Court Condominium Unit Owners Association (the Association) from taking further action with respect to his condominium unit, which relief is opposed by the Association. (Docket 193, 199). For the reasons stated below, the debtor's motion is denied.
Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and General Order No. 2012-7 entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Following extensive litigation in this court and in the state court, this court granted the Association relief from stay to allow the parties to resolve their rights as to property located at 24625 Clareshire Drive, Unit 103, North Olmsted, Ohio (Unit 103) in state court. The debtor is appealing that ruling.
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
The court held an evidentiary hearing on February 4, 2014. The debtor presented his case through his own testimony and cross-examination of Melanie Holman, a representative of M2 Management Group, the Association's property management company. The Association presented its case through the testimony of Ms. Holman, cross-examination of the debtor, and exhibits.
FACTS
The Cleveland area experienced extreme weather conditions on January 7 and 8, 2014. Ms. Holman, hearing complaints from people at the Association, went there to assess the situation. She found what she described as a "frozen Armageddon" with many plumbing issues, including broken pipes. Some units had water pouring through the ceiling.
Others in the Association reported to her that there was no heat in Unit 103 and that it was vacant. Concerned that the condition of 103 would adversely affect other units, she contacted Arthur Foth, counsel to the Association, and obtained a document from him that she felt authorized her to enter the unit forcibly. This is what she found, as documented by photographs: a unit with the walls stripped down to the studs, no hot water heater, no furnace, no bathtub, no kitchen sink, no countertops, no stove, and no dishwasher. There were big chunks missing from the bathroom and kitchen floor and walls where the fixtures had been. The unit was in disarray, with tools and materials strewn around.
Exhibit A1-9.
Ms. Holman arranged to place space heaters in the unit to prevent the pipes from freezing and changed the front door lock to safeguard the heaters. At some point, Mr. Medlar arrived as did the police, having been summoned by both Mr. Medlar and the Association. Mr. Medlar protested the Association's action, focusing particularly on the lock issue which he argued deprived him of the right to enter his unit. He asked for his tools, and Ms. Holman agreed that he could take them.
Mr. Medlar testified that he was renovating the unit and that he was living with his mother. He personally shut off the gas line before he left. The water and electricity remained on.
DISCUSSION
Injunctive Relief
The court may issue a preliminary injunction on notice to the adverse party. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a) (applicable in bankruptcy under FED. R. BANKR. P. 7065). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is simply to preserve the positions of the parties until the trial on the merits. Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 542 (6th Cir. 2007). In other words, a preliminary injunction maintains the status quo until the parties' dispute can be resolved. In deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the court must balance these four factors:
(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits;Id. "These four considerations are 'factors to be balanced, not prerequisites that must be met.'" Id. (quoting Jones v. City of Monroe, Mich., 341 F.3d 474, 476 (6th Cir. 2003)). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should only be granted if the movant has met the burden of proving that circumstances clearly demand it. Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002).
(2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction;
(3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and
(4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of the injunction.
Whether the debtor is likely to succeed on the merits
Ordinarily, the complaining party would file a complaint or other initiating pleading, together with a motion for a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo while the complaint is adjudicated. The court would then examine the complaint to see if the debtor is likely to succeed on the merits. Here, however, there is no complaint or other underlying cause of action; the debtor just filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Association from securing the property. The court cannot, therefore, determine if the debtor is likely to succeed on the merits and this factor does not weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief.
The court notes that it granted the Association relief from stay so that it can proceed in state court to enforce its rights as to the condominium, whatever they may be. There is no remaining claim on that issue in this court. Additionally, the debtor stated at the hearing that he filed a new lawsuit in state court addressing the most recent dispute with the Association. That highlights the fact that this is a state court dispute and should be resolved in that forum.
Whether the debtor has shown irreparable harm
As a general rule, harm is not irreparable where the party requesting injunctive relief has an adequate remedy in the form of monetary damages. Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar Publishers, Inc., 52 F.3d 1373, 1382 (6th Cir. 1995); Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507, 511 (6th Cir. 1992). The testimony did not show that there is anything unique or unusual about the condominium or personal property such that the debtor could not be compensated for the Association's actions through an award of money damages. As a result, this factor does not weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief.
Whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others
The testimony showed that the debtor did not take steps to protect his neighboring condominium owners from harm when he removed the furnace from the condominium and created the potential for frozen pipes and extensive water damage. Moreover, his testimony showed that he did not appreciate the full extent of the situation he had created and its potential to cause harm to others. As requiring the Association to release the condominium to the debtor would raise the same specter of harm to those individuals, this factor does not favor granting injunctive relief.
Whether the public interest will be served
On balance, this factor does not weigh either for or against granting an injunction.
CONCLUSION
After considering and balancing the four relevant factors, the court concludes that injunctive relief is not appropriate under the circumstances. The debtor's motion is, therefore, denied.
The court notes that this ruling is not dispositive of whether the debtor is entitled to relief in state court for the Association's actions with respect to the property.
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren
Chief Bankruptcy Judge